Trigger warning:

This site may, in fact always will contain images and information likely to cause consternation, conniptions, distress, along with moderate to severe bedwetting among statists, wimps, wusses, politicians, lefties, green fascists, and creatures of the state who can't bear the thought of anything that disagrees with their jaded view of the world.

May 17, 2008

There is always one guy in every crowd who turns when someone yells, “Hey stupid.”

George Bush has at last let the anti war appeasement crowd have it with both barrels during a speech in Israel, and it’s nice to see him defending himself. Onya George. (For those not familiar with Australian idiom, onya means “good on you.”): -

“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” Bush said, without mentioning Obama’s name.

“We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history,” he said.

Obama assuming, (funny about that) that such a statement could only referr to him said that he had no intention of dealing with terrorists and accused Bush of using his visit, timed for the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence, to “launch a false political attack.”

Well it’s always all about Obama isn’t it? If his statement is correct it’s a direct contradiction of the statement below where he lays down no condition whatsoever on discussions with the supporters of terrorism. Note that even Hilary comes out of it looking considerably more statesman like. Edwards the new Barrack groupie tries to fit into some sort of middle ground of his own imagining.

Obama and the Democrats have not changed since Ted Kennedy tried to sell out the US to Andropov to try to regain power in Washington.

Contrast this with the latest statement of the McCain campaign on this issue: -

“There should be no confusion, John McCain has always believed that serious engagement would require mandatory conditions and Hamas must change itself fundamentally – renounce violence, abandon its goal of eradicating Israel and accept a two state solution.

John McCain’s position is clear and has always been clear, the President of the United States should not unconditionally meet with leaders of Iran, Hamas or Hezbollah. Barack Obama has made his position equally clear, and has pledged to meet unconditionally with Iran’s leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the leaders of other rogue regimes, which shows incredibly dangerous and weak judgment.” ---Tucker Bounds, spokesman John McCain 2008

Interestingly McCain has been criticized for his statement that the war would effectively be over in about four years. If he is elected it could well be the case as the election of McCain instead of one of the wet liberals would be a devastating psychological blow to the enemy.

3 comments:

The comparison to the attempts to appease Nazi Germany certainly weren't unfair at all. One thing I noticed was that the more various (left-wing) people tried to expose the holes in this comparison, the more the comparison looked fair and reasonable.

Is there a comparison to the contrary position i.e. is there an example where appeasement of a group of people who were using terrorism or state military violence actually delivered a positive and just outcome? None spring to mind. A good example would be Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu negotiating with Arafat. He was more than reasonable, but when every reasonable request by Arafat was given (except maybe the Golan Heights, but their military significance probably makes them an unreasonable request), Arafat still would not give a peace agreement. You can't appease someone who is hell bent on doing business through violence - you can only meet them with your own violence.